Opinionator |
Giuliani’s ‘Electability’ Doesn’t Make Him More Electable

Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Giuliani’s ‘Electability’ Doesn’t Make Him More Electable

By Chris Suellentrop October 9, 2007 9:25 amOctober 9, 2007 9:25 am

Writing at CampaignStandard, the campaign blog of The Weekly Standard, William Kristol suggests that Rudy Giuliani isn’t significantly more “electable” than other candidates in the Republican field, particularly Fred Thompson.

“There’s a greater likelihood of a third-party effort against Rudy than against any of the other likely GOP nominees,” Kristol writes. He later adds:

Let’s say a pro-life third party got the 2.74 percent of the vote Ralph Nader got in 2000, and let’s assume that with another Republican nominee there wouldn’t be such a third-party effort. If the GOP nominee holds almost all those voters, then Giuliani’s electability advantage basically disappears.

None of this is to say Rudy might not turn out to be the strongest candidate against Hillary. It is to say that this is less clear than Rudy claims — and that electability therefore is unlikely to work as a decisive argument for Rudy with Republican primary voters as January approaches.

Are you kidding me? Electable? Some people don’t realize how big a disaster George Bush has been for the Republican Party. To name some: Iraq, katrina, Gonzales, and now vetoing medical care for poor childrens. They don’t understand how much of their own legacy that must be overcome in 2008.

All this talk of which Republican is “electable” is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The GOP is going to be wiped out in 2008 the same way they were after Nixon. And they deserve it: They have proved again and again that they are incompetent at governing; not responsive to most citizens concerns; and prisoners of an inflexible ideaology divorced from the real world. Busah has abused his powers across the board and shamed this great nation. Fear is the only weapon they have left, and even that will not work in 2008 barring another 9/11.

It’s comforting to see that Bill Kristol is still making predictions. Since he has basically been wrong about every position he has taken since being Dan Quayle’s brain trust, Rudy Giuliani must be pleased. However, since Rudy is akin to a whirling dervish, positionally speaking, I doubt that he has noticed anything that Mr. Kistol has had to allow.

Maybe it would be a great favor to us all just to telescope the entire campaign process into a 6-week period. All these preliminary flummeries could just be played out in some sort of cybersimulation, with the two candidates who have garnered the most cybevotes as the candidates. As it is, most of it is pure 100% baloney anyway. But it’s expensive baloney, brought to you by the nice folks at … (fill in the blanks). Just think, all the candidates could use the same themesong: “My baloney has a first name, it’s _____, my baloney has a second name, it’s _____.”

Look, let’s be realistic. Bill Kristol has seldom, if ever been correct in any of his predictions. Most people who are conscious and thinking know that the Democrats will control the Presidency and both houses in the election of 2008. In fact they will probably control them for the following eight years at least. The Republican Party continues to argue that lowering taxes is the way America must go. They fail to realize that if you allow America’s infrastructure to collapse such as the interstate bridges, the children’s healthcare program, our highways, etc., because you pull the funding for them out and reinserted it into a war that most people are fully against you are simply asking to be turned away at the ballot box and you will be. Supplyside economics has never worked as advertised. Most Republicans know this yet those who control the party (the big buck guys) continue to stuff this wrongheaded economic policy down American’s throats. That will end in the election of 2008. Either work to help American families are sit in the backseat and let someone else drive.

Rudy counts on a tradeoff, some evangelicals sitting on their hands, and some GOP -leaning independents sticking with that party one more time because he the embodyment of what makes them lean GOP.

And he is correct. Rudy is the only GOP wannabe who can attract enough independents to win, especially considering that the evangelicals who sit out will mostly come from states so heavily GOP that he can win them anyway.

Giuliani is the only hope the Republicans have.

And if you look up “wrong” in the dictionary, there’s probably a picture of Bill Kristol.

Looking backward at history I am guided forward to predicting that Rudy Giuliani cannot be elected under any circumstances. This is based on the fact that within my memory, no former mayor of NYC has ever held any higher elected office. Rather, they tend to slowly fade from sight despite predictions to the contrary shortly after their terms have expired. John Lindsay comes to mind as a man who should have gone on to bigger and better things. He had it all: looks, manner and relative youth and yet he never held elected office again. Rather he died in somewhat impoverished circumstances.

It would be difficult to imagine anyone outside NY seriously considering a former mayor of NYC as a someone they would vote for. I have traveled throughout this land over the years and I can say with some sadness that we of the NY area are not beloved of our countrymen. Why this should be is a matter for conjecture and I’m sure that there are as many opinions as there are people who might consider the question.

Considering Mr. Giuliani specifically, I think he carries more than the usual baggage far beyond his mere association with NY. He may generate a lot of press and even some crowd appeal due to the performance he gave during the days following the events of 9/11 but that does not necessarily translate into actual votes. I think we often mistake “buzz” with reality. Some candidates generate more interest than others just because of who they are or what they may have recently been involved in but this does not make them “votable”.

I think that when people step into a voting booth or voting terminal they shed much of the trivial and cast their vote with far more thought than the media or those who work the media give them credit for. We may be more interested in a Ferrari than a 4-door sedan, but when it comes down to buying our transportation for real money, most opt for the sedan.

In closing I would love to see Mr. Giuliani win his party’s nomination as it would make for quite a memorable election but alas, I think even that will not happen.

Bill Kristol might be right but, as I see it, the only thing that MIGHT be able to unite the Republican Party enough to win next Fall is Hillary’s winning the Democratic nomination.

Frankly, I don’t think that will be enough to defeat Hillary because it will also require a significant number of Independent voters choosing the Republican nominee.

Though a life-long Republican, I am so unhappy with not only George W. Bush but the bulk of Republican’s in Congress that I hope that nothing prevents the Democrats from taking over the White House in 2008. My personal favorite is Joe Biden for his experience and his moderate positions on most issues. Since I don’t expect that Biden has a chance to win the nomination, my second choice is Barak Obama — though quite liberal and inexperienced, he is clearly intelligent and measured in his response. Further, he appears to be his own man. As for Hillary, she appears to be disingenuous and an opportunitst.

All these “thoughtful” analyses are missing a crucial point. Rudy is crazy. Not the funny kind of “life of a party” crazy either, more like the “lonely man muttering to himself while he sharpens his knives” kind of crazy. If I was a Democratic candidate I’d love to debate him. “OK, Rudy, we admit Israel to NATO. They re-invade Lebanon, and Syria counter-attacks. What do we do then?”

Thinking that voting for a President is an exercise in evaluating ideas, philosophies, ideologies seems so out of vogue. Let us cast overboard all these debates and newscasts and polls and campaigns and focus only on who can most likely win and get on with the game. Think of the savings.

Here’s a line from the speech Giuliani gave, in England Sept 19, 2007, regarding Iran, which is especially telling:
“If they get to the point where they are going to become a nuclear power, we will prevent them,” he said of the Iranians, adding, “Or we will set them back 5 or 10 years.”
First off, you can see he’s truly a Yankee. These days, only Yankee’s still sit around the table playing set-back, a card game where the goal, besides making your points, is to ‘set’ your opponent ‘back’ in his points.

Next, it’s obvious that Rudy sees himself as president, poised over that button, ready to respond the moment Iran moves from “trying” to become a nuclear power, to “going” to become one. Of course, once you see that they are “going to become a nuclear power” isn’t it a little late?

He is also telling us that he expects to be a better soothsayer than the current president. The American people demand as much in a president. After all, President Bush ‘saw’ that Iraq had become a lethal threat to the United States, much as he ‘saw’ into Vladimir Putin’s soul. Now Rudy’s going to ‘see’ the reality of Iran? I certainly hope some reporter remembers to ask Rudy how his vision would be better – or at least convince us that it wouldn’t be any worse – than Bush’s.

How about the response to Iran he envisions? “We will prevent them, or we will set them back 5 or 10 years”. That’s some option. Setting the Iranians back 5 or 10 years does show that Rudy has learned lessons from Vietnam. There we were going to “bomb ‘em back to the Stone Age.” At least Rudy shows some restraint. President Bush seems to be aiming for the Bronze Age in Iraq. The poor Iranians – they must be scratching their heads over this, “Do we let them “prevent us”? Maybe we can reach a compromise and only be set-back two or three years.” It sure doesn’t leave them much wiggle room. I guess they need to watch Planet of the Apes to get an idea.

And what does “prevent them” mean? It sounds like a high-in-the-sky laser-guided bombing mission – similar to those the Clinton administration employed against Iraq before the Bush administration decided some setting-back was due.

Still, you have to assume that Rudy Giuliani is well coached and rehearsed. This isn’t a slam on him, just an assumption about someone serious and well financed enough to be in the front pack of presidential wanna-be’s. It does make one wonder, though? Did he plan to say this; to put us on the road to war with yet another country? If this was his intended message, do he intend to sound like a caricature of a power-hungry, domineering, American president? Is he channeling Team America? And, oh my…what if this wasn’t rehearsed but just off-the-cuff? It sounds even more like Team America, doesn’t it? I guess this is what you have to say if you want your party’s endorsement.

There is one more thing Rudy makes very clear…when he talks about “we”, as in “we will…”, he means you, me and our children.

I think that Rudy or any leader in these times should be a bit crazy. Now, We admit Israel into NATO, they are attacked be Hezbollah (The Party of God) (NOT) inside of Israel again, they respond by retaliating against Hezbollah inside Lebanon again. Now, they are a NATO member in your hypothetical situation, so article V is put in play “an attack against one NATO member is an attack against all NATO members” Syria, who supports Hezbollah as does Iran, attacks Israel so NATO attacks Syria as the charter requires! This is GOING to happen sooner then you think. Also, the problem with your thinking is that Lebanon and Syria are the same country, thay are not. Syria is killing Christian leaders in Lebanon constantly; those attacks are acts of war as was the attacks on Israeli soldiers. They did not invade unprovoked they defended themselves. It’s easy to figure out for a true Irishman

Electability as a measure for selecting a candidate is over-rated. It was only four years ago that Democrats, like me, looking at Dean, Edwards and Kerry concluded Kerry was the most electable. We were wrong, but we are not alone. Was Gore in fact more electable than Bradley? Bush the senior was thought more electable than Reagan. Certainly in 1960 Kennedy appeared less electable than Humphery or Johnson.

Convential wisdom about electability is just another over-worked shorthand metaphor for those whose known opinions on present day issues seem to fall more often in the conventional mainstream; and who appears to have a personal history less prone to attack by the other party.

Like other convetional wisdoms, they don’t always work. The issues can change with the news cycle. The candidates do differ; but within the respective parties they differ far more as people and personalties than they differ on the substantive issues. The personal is everything with voters. By the same token, the personal is rarely well-reported.

The winning candidate will be the one who best plays January-March and then the electoral college; who has the magic that Molly Ivins referred to as “the Elvis factor”; and who either has or does not have the most remembered moment of the debates. It is still a wide-open race, all three of them.

As an independent who supported Bush Sr. twice, and Perot during Bill Clinton’s reelection year, I feel qualified to opine that, given the Republican Party’s me-too chorus as Dubya tore his Katrina-like path of destruction across the American landscape, there is no chance that many independents will even consider giving this party a chance to do more damage, whoever the candidate.

Rudy Giuliani High point was his leadership on 9/11,not before. He placed his emergency management organization at 7 World Trade Center where it proved to be totally ineffective. Police and firefighters could not communicate because of incompatible phones and thus gave contradictory instructions to World Trade center occupants. His so called crime fighting before 9/11 was the product of the Police Department’s head Bratton for which he was pushed out. Giuliani’s backing of Kerik for the top DHS showed extremely poor judgment. The voters will have to take the above into account before they make a decision as to Mr. Giuliani’s fitness for higher office.

When one recalls the thinking about Rudy’s political future toward the end of his mayoral tenure, it brings to mind an old cliche, something to the effect “does a man make events or does an event make a man?”. If events make the man that explains his taking advantage of 9/11 and making a lot of money on the speaker’s circuit, his Time magazine cover, and his constant referral to 9/11. It may be all he has. It also reinforces the notion that without 9/11 he would not be on anyone’s radar as a presidential candidate.But if its the man makes the events is true, what a failure in leadership, if he was so great in anticipating terror & fighting it and so great a leader in protecting the city, why didn’t he take steps to avoid 9/11 or at least be more prepared to respond to it. If the man was so great why didn’t people think of him as a man with a great political future leader before 9/11.
H. Wallace

Poster #5 says: “Anyone who lived in NYC during Rudy’s tenure knows him to have an abrasive personality and fascist tendencies.” It’s almost frightening to think there are actually people out there who believe this loony left fantasy. I lived in NYC during Rudy’s reign. Abrasive? Compared to whom? Al Sharpton then or Eliot Spitzer now? Being abrasive is a birthright of NYC citizens. “Fascist tendencies?” Hilarious. In NYC being called a fascist is the price one pays for enforcing the law and making the city safer. Many New Yorkers simply hate the fact that others are happy and/or more successful than themselves. These masochists, and there are many in NYC, want to spread the misery around.

Rudy will never be President for the simple reason that he is a very, very liberal Republican. That’s why he’s the favorite Republican for the press just like John McCain used to be. McCain finally wised up and figured out that the press is enormously unpopular in conservative circle. Rudy hasn’t done so yet. And nothing can change the fact that in much of the nation he wouldn’t even be called a Republican but rather a moderate Democrat.

It starts with his long held views on homosexuality/gay marriage, gun rights, etc and then there is his bizarre personal like. Too many wives, his kids despise him and too much of a fondness for dressing up in drag.
In New York these things are no big deal, but NYC has little in common with most of America.

The most over-rated politician in my lifetime is Giuliani. The press has failed to expose the mediocre lawyer, mean-spirited, self-aggrandizer that he is.
Giuliani is given credit for cleaning up New York, while the praise should go to Police Commissioner Kelly, who initiated community policing under Mayor Dinkins. Kelly was quickly removed by Giuliani and replaced with the highly capable and charismatic William Bratton, who Giuliani removed because Bratton’s high profile and frequent press coverage detracted from Giuliani’s non-stop PR.

Why has the press not interviewed former underlings in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, which he ran as a fiefdom? His leadership can best be described as abusive. We don’t need another “don’t bother me with the facts” decider in the White House.

Why do people still treat William Kristol as if he has credibility on any issue? He has been wrong on everything he has ever talked about. And yet the media still treats him as some kind of a sage. He is on all the TV talk shows. He still writes op-eds for the Washington Post.

Apparently, there is nothing a neocon can do or say that will make them discredited in Washington. Kristol Meth will continue being wrong about everything under the sun and the media will continue treating him like a wise man.

Rudy is stark raving mad. Eventually the rest of the country will find out about the real Rudy. Thompson is sleepwalking. Romney is the ultimate Counterfeit Candidate. The guy is so fake you can smell the plastic. McCain has lost his mind.

All of the Republican candidates support the occupation of Iraq. Their sole economic plan is more tax cuts. None has a health care plan other than “market solutions”, whatever that is. They are stuck with Bush’s policies.